{"id":33412,"date":"2021-04-29T09:41:58","date_gmt":"2021-04-29T13:41:58","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=33412"},"modified":"2021-04-29T21:27:52","modified_gmt":"2021-04-30T01:27:52","slug":"what-causes-trust-issues","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/what-causes-trust-issues\/","title":{"rendered":"What Causes Trust Issues? Dishonest Marketing"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

What is the tragedy of the commons<\/a>? How can mistrust in corporations lead to the mistrust of our peers? How can we work on becoming more trusting in the future?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The tragedy of the commons is the concept that everybody shares common resources and if we all respect them, then everybody can prosper. But, inevitably, a minority of the population will take advantage of the trust system and ruin the commons for everybody. Companies everywhere do this to us every day and it causes inherent mistrust of others.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading to learn what causes trust issues and what we can do to improve the situation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

How Dishonest Marketing Causes Trust Issues<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

What causes trust issues? In this article, we\u2019ll discuss how marketing tricks have eroded our trust in one another<\/em> and how distrust of others leads us to make untrustworthy, irrational choices ourselves. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To understand how mistrust of companies can translate into further-reaching implications in society, it\u2019s important to first understand the concept of the tragedy of the commons. <\/em>This concept originates from the 1800s when farmers often shared a \u201ccommons\u201d at the center of town to graze their livestock. To ensure that the resource was shared fairly\u2014and to prevent overgrazing of the commons\u2014farmers had a set limit on the number of animals they could graze there. The tragedy of the commons<\/em> was the unfortunate fact that self-interested farmers would realize they could make more money<\/a> if they added more animals. They would exceed the set limits and, while this made them more money in the short term, eventually rendered the commons unusable for everyone.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In present day, \u201cthe tragedy of the commons\u201d is used to discuss the exploitation of public goods and resources. If everyone commits to ensuring that resources aren\u2019t depleted, everyone enjoys the benefits\u2014this is the rational<\/em> way to consume resources. But, all too often, there are people who act in their short-term self-interest and destroy the resources for everyone in the long term.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Organizations that destroy rainforests to build palm oil plantations, billionaires who underpay their employees to amass more wealth, water companies putting a price on natural springs\u2014we see the tragedy of the commons playing out around us every day. As a result, we naturally feel that we can\u2019t trust others with public resources because it\u2019s likely that an organization will exploit the resource, sooner or later. This general distrust of organizations has far-reaching implications that hinder both interpersonal relationships and altruistic societal developments. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

How Trust Issues Causes Untrustworthy Behaviors<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Trust is an important and delicate resource. When it\u2019s intact, our benefits are at their maximum. When people act selfishly, they deplete the public resource of trust<\/em>\u2014and we respond in several irrational ways that further deplete it.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, we start to apply distrust to <\/strong>everyone<\/em><\/strong> instead of just the person or organization in question. <\/strong>A good example of this is the \u201cfree money\u201d experiment at MIT. Experimenters set up a stand that advertised free money<\/em> in denominations ranging from $1 to $50. Only 19% of passersby <\/em>stopped to take money\u2014and the majority of those who stopped asked if it was a trick or if they needed to complete a task<\/a>. The experimenters also interviewed those who passed the booth without stopping, who admitted that they didn\u2019t stop because they thought they\u2019d be roped into some type of scheme by doing so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

People are so used to seeing the word \u201cfree\u201d thrown around in marketing as a half-truth, with terms and conditions in small print, that they\u2019re programmed to automatically think that any <\/em>\u201cfree\u201d offers must be a type of trick\u2014even when it\u2019s coming from other people, not a company. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second, we\u2019re more likely to <\/strong>engage in untrustworthy behaviors ourselves<\/em><\/strong> when we feel that others are not trustworthy<\/strong>. One place you\u2019ll commonly see this is on dating sites\u2014you figure that most people are lying about their height or their weight. In order to be a competitive candidate on the site, you also <\/em>lie about your height. Or, you might fudge your experience a little on your r\u00e9sum\u00e9, figuring that everyone embellishes some points in order to stand out in the hiring pool. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These dishonest behaviors may be beneficial in the short term, but all they accomplish is a furthering of the cycle of distrust. Those who do<\/em> act with honesty are punished for doing so\u2014men who don\u2019t lie about their height are overlooked, or a candidate with an unembellished r\u00e9sum\u00e9 doesn\u2019t land an interview. In the future, they will also resort to untrustworthy behavior, because it\u2019s the only way to be competitive. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because we feel that most people are untrustworthy, we spend more time and energy on making sure we aren\u2019t being swindled or punished for honesty than on meaningful exchanges and uses of resources. If, rationally, we worked toward building trust<\/a> instead of focusing on how we can \u201cwin,\u201d we would be able to reap more rewards from our exchanges and transactions. <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rebuilding Trust<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The only way out of the ongoing cycle of distrust and untrustworthy behaviors is to become more trusting<\/em>. There are two ways that you can accomplish this:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Consciously stop contributing to interpersonal distrust. <\/strong>Understand that trust is an easily exploited resource\u2014make sure that the way you communicate isn\u2019t contradictory or doesn\u2019t rely on confusing or hidden subtext. For example, companies can make sure that their contracts are written in straightforward, easy to understand language instead of legal jargon. Or, you can make a conscious effort to always<\/em> say what you mean. If you tell an employee that there\u2019s \u201cno rush\u201d on a project, don\u2019t become upset when they don\u2019t start working on it right away. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Engage with trustworthy organizations. <\/strong>While working on interpersonal relationships can help establish small pockets of trust, recall that much of people\u2019s general <\/em>distrust trickles down from distrust of organizations that use resources for selfish gains. To repair your general sense of distrust, you can engage with trustworthy companies that don\u2019t exploit natural resources or<\/em> the resource of trust. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To accomplish this, look for companies that focus on transparency and prioritize doing the right thing over profit. Consider the Tylenol response in 1982 when cyanide was added to their product and killed seven people. The company stopped production and pulled their stock from shelves, and issued a recall for all Tylenol capsules. In total, their efforts to contain the issue cost them $100 million. The situation could have been devastating for the brand, but they\u2019re still a trusted household name because of their dedication to transparency and their prioritization of customer safety.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

When you\u2019re considering if a company is trustworthy, there are several questions you can ask yourself: <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n